Himmler, Heydrich and the Fuehrer Order

[David Thompson]

Erik -- My comments above are a general observation about a form of "argument" one often sees in this section of the forum. If I had wanted to single you out as one who frequently uses that form of argument, I would have mentioned you by name. As you have already noticed, I didn't.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(d) On 4-5 Oct 1941, during a visit of Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler to Nikolaev, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., he visited the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D. SS-Brigadefuehrer Prof. Otto Ohlendorf, the commander of Einsatzgruppe D, described Himmler's inspection tour:
When the Reichsfuehrer-SS arrived at my headquarters, I had assembled all available commanders of my Einsatzgruppe. The Reichsfuehrer addressed these men and repeated the strict order to kill all those groups [Jews, gypsies, communist functionaries and communist activists] which I have designated. He added that he alone would carry the responsibility, as far as accounting to the Fuehrer was concerned. None of the men would bear any responsibility, but he demanded the execution of this order, even though he knew how harsh these measures were.
Nevertheless, after supper, I spoke to the Reichsfuehrer and I pointed out the inhuman burden which was being imposed on the men in killing all these civilians. I didn't even get an answer." (Trials of War Criminals IV, 251)

I note that in the above testimony by Ohlendorf, there is no reference to an order by Hitler at all. The impression is given that Himmler was taking all the responsibility for the mass-killing of civilians on himself. In fact, the words used, "accounting to the Fuehrer", suggests that Himmler would explain to Hitler why he, Himmler, had taken certain decisions and would accept the praise or blame for that, rather than that Himmler was a puppet carrying out an unavoidable order from Hitler.

Nevertheless, the categories of those to be killed, as listed by Ohlendorf, suggest that the "strict order" referred to was the Commissar Order (particularly as Communist functionaries are referred to), which of course had been initiated and approved by Hitler.

Himmler's words, assuming that Ohlendorf has replicated them accurately, are probably to be understood as his assuming responsibility for the implementation of the Commissar Order, ie his own interpretation of what fulfilment of the Commissar Order required under the actual conditions encountered and the implementation orders he subsequently issued, eg the killing of Jewish women and children in addition to men of military age or the Jewish intelligentsia, the latter being more obviously "bearers of Bolshevism" than women and children. In effect, Himmler was telling his men that he would take it on himself to explain to Hitler why it was necessary to kill large numbers of civilians in order to implement the Fuehrer's orders for the destruction of the Bolshevik system.

It should be borne in mind that at the time of the conversation at issue, October 1941, the Einsatzgruppen were by no means killing all the Jews they encountered. They were sweeping rapidly through the occupied areas, close behind the advancing German army, and were killing large numbers of people considered to be a potential security threat, primarily Jews. However, many Jews, quite probably the majority in the areas occupied until that date, had not been killed, but had been confined in ghettos. Some of those ghettos were liquidated soon after and their inhabitants killed; but most survived well into 1942, some into 1943, and there was even a handful that survived until 1944, until the very moment of the final German retreat.

It follows, therefore, that as of October 1941 there cannot have been an order in existence to kill all Jews. Thus, when Ohlendorf refers to Himmler confirming the the "strict order" to kill "all Jews" among other categories, that must be understood as an order to kill Jews falling into the categories listed in the Commissar Order.

[Scott Smith]

One cannot pass over that chasm by asking the reader to help him imagine a bridge.

Nor is a chasm created by the imagined need to have a bridge.

It depends on whether our purpose is to have a certain bridge or to have a certain chasm.

Of all the explanations that can be imagined, usually the simplest possibility is the best one.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(e) In early Mar 1942, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, the Higher SS and Police Leader of Central Russia, suffered a nervous breakdown and had to be taken to the SS hospital in Hohenlychen. SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Ernst Robert Grawitz, the SS chief medical officer and head of the German Red Cross, treated von dem Bach-Zelewski and reported to Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler: "He is suffering particularly from hallucinations connected with the shootings of Jews which he himself carried out and with other grievous experiences in the East." When Dr. Grawitz discussed von dem Bach-Zelewski's nightmares, the patient said: "Thank God, I'm through with it. Don't you know what's happening in Russia? The entire Jewish people . . . is being exterminated there." In a discussion with Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler about the psychological strain of being a mass murderer, von dem Bach-Zelewski asked if the whole "Jewish business" in the East could be brought to an end. Himmler replied, "That is a Fuehrer order. The Jews are the disseminators of Bolshevism . . . . If you don't keep your nose out of the Jewish business, you'll see what'll happen to you!" (Hoehne 411)

I presume that the statements by Grawitz and Bach-Zelewski quoted by Hoehne were all made in post-war interrogations. In that case, there is the danger that those statements, while describing something that did actually happen, have been influened by considerations applicable at the time the interrogations took place.

Thus, we cannot be confident that Bach-Zelewski actually said to Grawitz in March 1942 "the entire Jewish people is being exterminated (in Russia)". He probably did say something along the lines that huge numbers of people, disproportionately Jews, were being killed, and that was causing him nightmares. However, as of March 1942, the mass liquidation of the ghettos in the occupied Soviet Union had not yet begun, so it is extremely unlikely that Bach-Zelewski would at that dat have used a formulation of extermination of an entire people. The statement by Grawitz is most probably a reformulation of Bach-Zelewski's words, influenced by the fact that by 1945 the Allied interrogators were all firmly convinced that an extermination of the Jews had been perpetrated, and that Hitler had ordered it.

As for Bach-Zelwski's description of his conversation with Himmler, we can dismiss Himmler's alleged threat as a self-serving attempt by Bach-Zelewski to show that he was acting under duress, and personally opposed to the "Jewish business". However, the words attributed to Himmler about the Jews being "the disseminators of Bolshevism" ring true, since they are consistent with National Socialist ideology (and rightist ideology generally).

It is possible that Himmler did say something to Bach-Zelewski about the need to destroy the supporters of Bolshevism, which had indeed been ordered by Hitler, in the Commissar Order, and that the destruction process should be applied to Jews in particular, since they were the main supporters of Bolshevism. The "Fuehrer order" referred to would then be the Commissar Order, not a separate order from Hitler relating specifically to Jews. However, I think it extremely unlikely that it was in response to any suggestion by Bach-Zelewski to stop the killings; I doubt that he ever made such a suggestion.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(f) Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler sent out a written order of very limited circulation that all Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were to be exterminated. According to SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dieter Wisliceny, who saw it in Apr 1942, , it read: "The Fuehrer has decided that the final solution of the Jewish question is to start immediately. I designate the Chief of the Security Police and the SD [SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich] and the Inspector of Concentration Camps [SS-Brigadefuehrer Richard Gluecks] as responsible for the execution of this order . . . ." (Holo Levin 299-300)
This order was shown to Wisliceny by SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann on a subsequent occasion, when Eichmann told Wisliceny that almost all of the Jews Wisliceny had deported to the East from Slovakia were dead. This was the first Wisliceny learned of the systematic extermination he was helping to implement, and Wisliceny later described the order as reading in very euphemistic terms:
Eichmann then said he could show me this order from [Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich] Himmler in writing, if it would put my conscience at rest. He went to his safe, took out a thin file, and showed me a letter from Himmler to the head of the Security Police and the SD [SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich].The gist of this letter was that the Fuehrer had ordered the final solution of the Jewish problem. The head of the Security Police and the SD and the Inspector of Concentration Camps were entrusted with implementation of this final solution. Pending the final solution, all able-bodied concentration-camp inmates of female or male sex should be employed on labor projects." (Eichmann Interr 95)

The above claim of a written order was made by Wisliceny in the course of interrogations by Allied staff in about November 1945, pursuant to the collection of evidence for the TMWC before the IMT. The text of the interrogation is in the recent book by Overy, "Interrogations: The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945".

The whole account by Wisliceny is extremely self-serving and hence open to doubt. Wisliceny presents himself as being, as of the middle of 1942, entirely unaware that any killing of Jews was taking place, and therefore totally surprised and shocked when Eichmann told him that the Jews deported from Slovakia earlier that year were now all dead (which in itself was not true; Jews from Slovakia survived at Auschwitz in disproportionate numbers since they, as the first arrivals, monopolised the easier inside jobs). Wisliceny claims that he protested and asked to be shown the authorisation for the killing, at which point Eichmann showed him the alleged order from Himmler dated April 1942.

Certain features of the order described by Wisliceny, eg the fact that it was addressed to both Heydrich of the RSHA and Gluecks of the WVHA, and that it ordered that able-bodied male and female Jews be sent to concentration camps for employment on labour projects, bear a strong resemblance to a preserved order from Himmler issued at the end of January 1942. That order was issued to both Heydrich and Gluecks, and authorised the sending of 100,000 male Jews and 50,000 female German Jews to the concentration camps for employment on labour projects. Wisliceny may have seen a copy of that order, or perhaps a follow-up order issued in April, as he claimed, authorising the sending of Jews from Slovakia and other places.

The essential point is that the preserved order of January 1942 dos not even hint at the killing of Jews; rather it speaks only of their use for labour in the concentration camps. Even Wisliceny's version of the order that he claims he saw does not refer to killing, but rather the "disposition" of the Jews (that is the English word used in the record of Wisliceny's interrogation, as given in the Overy book; the record exists only in English, so we do not know what German word Wisliceny used). It sems to me likely that Wisliceny remembered an actual order that he did see, but has distorted its contents and/or its context.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(g) On 2 Oct 1942, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler ordered that Jews working in the armaments factories in the Generalgouvernement of Poland were to be "concentrated to capacity in a few Jewish camp-run industrial centers in the eastern parts of the Generalgouvernement . . . . However, one day the Jews there, in conformity with the Fuehrer's wish, are also to disappear." (Fleming 128)

As I understand it, the above is a preserved written order by Himmler.

It documents Hitler's wish that the Jews concentrated in the east of the Gneralgouvernement for slave labour should "disappear" at some unstated time in the future.

It is no secret that Hitler wished the Jews to "disappear" from Germany, and indeed from all of Europe. But that does not necessarily mean that he was committed to physical extermination as the means of making them "disappear". He had given his support to emigration, and to such schemes as the Madagascar Plan; he had finnally approved, toward the beginning of 1941, deportation to the territory to be conquered in the Soviet Union.

The words used by Himmler in his order cannot therefore be read as confirmation that Hitler ordered the physical extermination of the Jews. The "disappearance" of the remaining Jews from the Generalgouvernement could be achieved through deportation, although the objective reality of the situation was that since March of that year physical extermination of Polish Jews unusable for labour had been in progress. Whether that extermination episode had been specifically ordered by Hitler, or authorised by Himmler using the powers given to him by Hitlr in October 1939, is unknown.

[Roberto]

Mr. Thompson wrote:

Roberto -- You said: "Taking into consideration that someone may have had an interest in lying is one thing. Bluntly assuming that said someone did lie is another, and postulating that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied as well is still another. The latter considerations, which the philosopher is trying to promote, have much to do with ideologically motivated wishful thinking but little if anything to do with historiography."

You have made an excellent point, Roberto. Raising one of several possible explanations does not transform that possible explanation into an established fact. This fallacious (and intellectually lazy) form of argument is frequently seen in this section of the forum. The fact that a possible explanation exists does not mean that it happened that way, nor does it even establish how likely the possible explanation is to be true. There is a huge chasm between a possibility and a fact. One cannot pass over that chasm by asking the reader to help him imagine a bridge.

And later:

For Michael Mills -- Needless to say, my comment above is not directed at you. Your responses to the Himmler and Heydrich statements have been thought-provoking, and I'm looking forward to more.

Mr. Thompson’s comment may of course have been directed at Roberto and witness, since they, too, are posting “in this section of the forum”.

However, a possibility may exist that Erik is the targeted promotor of the “fallacious (and intellectually lazy) form of argument” that consists in “raising one of several possible explanations” in order to “transport that possible explanation into an established fact”.

This abominable aberration of intellectual laziness perhaps is the one of the considerations that has “much to do with ideologically motivated wishful thinking but little if anything to do with historiography", according to Roberto.

The philosopher's problem is not intellectual laziness. It's an excess of fantasy coupled with a woeful deficiency of evidence. Add the confusion inside his mind, and you have "Revisionist" articles of faith.

Mr Thompson wrote (above):

The fact that a possible explanation exists does not mean that it happened that way, nor does it even establish how likely the possible explanation is to be true. There is a huge chasm between a possibility and a fact. One cannot pass over that chasm by asking the reader to help him imagine a bridge.

That is perhaps why the fact needs the help of the law to be true?

Where do facts need "the help of the law to be true", other than in the philosopher's confused mind?

To avoid the likelihood of other possible explanations across that “huge chasm” of possibilites, and the imagining of any “bridge”?

No, to avoid disturbances of the public order and inter-ethnic violence that hate speech might bring about or contribute to. As to "other possible explanations", could it be that the philosopher, alone among his "Revisionist" peers, can provide a convincing, evidence-backed "other possible explanation" than mass murder to the facts he sees as contributing to his pension being threatened by lowly immigrants "following the buck"?

An “Alcatraz” theory of truth?

It's a good fortune for howlers like the philosopher that hate-speech laws exist in certain countries. What would they otherwise have to help them pretend that there’s something to the intellectual and moral refuse they produce?

Roberto wrote:

Taking into consideration that someone may have had an interest in lying is one thing. Bluntly assuming that said someone did lie is another, and postulating that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied as well is still another.

How about turning it around?

>>Postulating that someone may have an interest in lying is one thing.<<

That’s why we have legal inquiries and court proceedings, isn’t it?

No, that’s not the reason, my dear ignorant philosopher. The reason lies in a person’s constitutional right not to be punished for a crime unless his or her guilt for such crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This “interest in lying” is “postulated”.

No, it may be assumed when it is understandable in view of the circumstances.

Truth must be inquired after, and not bluntly assumed to be in the interest of everybody.

The notion of historical truth the philosopher rambles against is the result of six decades of legal inquiries and court proceedings as well as historical research, making the claim that any of the facts inconvenient to the philosopher's convictions (and his pension, of course) is "bluntly assumed" or "postulated" too primitive and imbecile even for a "Revisionist" true believer.

>>Taking into consideration that said someone did lie is another.<<

Once the interest is postulated, this must be taken into consideration.

It isn’t "postulated". See above.

>>Bluntly assuming that because he or she may have lied everyone else is likely or even certain to have lied is still another.<<

That is why we have “hate speech” legislation, isn’t it?

No, that’s not the reason for the philosopher’s good fortune lying in the existence of such legislation, and I don’t even see the logical connection.

The lies must be stopped, and accordingly “bluntly” assumed.

No, they are not "bluntly assumed". Their lack of evidentiary support and/or distortion and misrepresentation of evidence just makes them all too obvious.

No appeal to be given once “historiography” has ruled.

Contrary to what the philosopher would like to believe, historiography is subject to constant revision. Of course evidence and reasonable arguments are required to bring this about. The philosopher and his "Revisionist" peers can show neither, hence the helpless rambling they are reduced to.

Robert wrote:

Or maybe it takes a fantasy-prone mind to believe that certain inconvenient facts are "lies", despite the evidence to such facts and the absence of evidence to supposed manipulations by any "interested" entities.

That is why any bridges from the “Alcatraz” of fact over the chasms of possibility to the land of free inquiry must be un-imagined.(?).

No, the bridges of historical revision are just fine, and historians walk across them all the time, while "Revisionists" are kept by the jungle of their pre-conceived notions from even reaching them. How can you properly assess evidence when you have postulated that it was all fabricated by the hook-nosed Jew under your bed trying to steal you hard-earned Swedish pension away from you?

Erik wrote:
At least that is a key consideration that must not fail to be taken into account when we are dealing with lies.

See above on how such considerations should be approached. Not the philosopher's way of bluntly assuming that if one may have lied, everyone is likely to have lied.

Notice how the possibility of "bridges" is "approached".

The philosopher’s “at least” concerning “a key consideration that must not fail to be taken into account when we are dealing with lies” is turned into “bluntly assuming that if one may have lied, everyone is likely to have lied”.

Why, am I supposed to have misunderstood the poor philosopher?

Is so, he should blame it on his inability to express himself clearly, as usual.

But what, then, was he trying to tell us?

Erik was using the formulation of Prof. Evans in his criticism of David Irving:

Likewise, Irving deliberately fails to take into account a number of key considerations when using his material. For instance, rather than Hitler not knowing about the ‘Final Solution’ he may quite explicablly have lied to certain members of his staff.

Hitler’s interest to lie is postulated, “simply because he didn't want to be seen as a complicit in the act of mass murder since he was the nation' leader and the head of State”, to use the formulation of witness, approved by Roberto.

Nonsense. Evans is postulating nothing. He’s assuming something that is understandable in view of the circumstances, namely that Hitler had an interest in keeping certain people in the dark about certain things. Apart from being understandable, this attitude is supported by Hitler’s own proclaimed maxim to tell everyone only as much as the person in question needed to know, and that only when it was necessary for said person to know it.

Can it be postulated that others had the same interest to lie, simply because they wanted to be seen as acting under the duress of the Führer’s will?

Such interest would be understandable in view of the circumstances, but lead us to no more than a possibility to be considered.

Or is that “bluntly assuming” etc? (see above)

When you convert a possibility to be considered into an established fact without any evidence supporting this conversion, you’re incurring in the fallacy of blunt assumption indeed.

What happens when we take such interest into account as a key consideration when using the materials of postwar war-crimes inquiries?

Historians would look for indications supporting and others contradicting such considerations and weigh both against each other, a convergence of various independent depositions and their being supported by other evidence making the dismissal of such considerations seem quite reasonable.

Isn’t that what Mr. Mills is doing, with brilliantly “thought-provoking” (Mr. Thompson) results?

I don’t want to break into the discussion between David and Mills, but I’d say such praise is only warranted if Mills is weighing indications in favor and against such considerations in each particular case, rather than bluntly converting considerations into established facts in all cases in question without evidence supporting this conversion.

[Erik]

Witness wrote:

Of course one can create all kind of "paradoxes" if one makes his conclusions based on the wrong premises.
Here is this premise
Quote:

The genocidal urge of “the police and the civilian administration”

I don't think that there is any existing evidence of the"genocidal urge " of "the police and the civilian administration"

Gerlach wrote (translated by Roberto) :

Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

(Erik’s emphasis).

And:

…the pressure by the police and parts of the civilian administration… in the direction of a large-scale extermination was already so great that it would have inevitably led to terrible consequences sooner or later.(Erik’s emphasis.)

Roberto wrote:

As German historian Christian Gerlach has plausibly argued, it is reasonable to assume that Hitler's order for the "final solution", 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.

(Erik’s emphasis).

Of course, it may be possible to deny the existence of evidence for such an insistence, pressure or initiatives, and that Gerlach and Roberto are sucking it out of their thumbs.

You can also protest against the characterizing of such an insistence, pressure or initiatives as a “genocidal urge”, and “simply” describe it as “not knowing what to do with them and basically wanting to get rid of them”.

Like this:

"The police and the civilian administration" were not exactly the cannibals in anticipation of their meal.. They simply had all those Jews on their hands which had been declared to be "subversive elements" and "subhumans" not knowing what to do with them and basically wanting to get rid of them which is not equal to having some sort of a "genocidal urge ".(Erik's emphasis)

(The Denier can’t deny himself, can he?)

The Jews could have been sent to Siberia etc…

(That is the deniers’ contention, isn’t it?)

Perhaps on the contrary because they didn't have this "urge" they were giving "vent to their complaints " ?

Complaints about what, then?

Gerlach wrote:

It is surely difficult to understand that Hitler took a principle decision on the murder of all European Jews after the mass murder in a number of countries had already victimized almost a million Jewish people. It is difficult to comprehend that this decision was not taken all at once, but step by step, region by region.

(Erik’s emphasis).

And Roberto characterized (above) :

Hitler's order for the "final solution", …. 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…

Were they murdering without authorization? And then complaining? About what?

However after Hitler gave his "go ahead" approval ,there were no already such alternatives to murder and naturally the police and civilian administration had to come to terms with the reality of having to participate in the mass murder since they knew that the order from " the nation's leader and the Head of the State " existed.?

They murdered a million before they knew of any such order! And then complaining because “they had to murder”!

What were they hoping to achieve by complaining?

I am just following Robeto's advice and nicely waving back..

I’m sure Roberto will be waving back at you again, “nicely”, like he does at Lisbon.

[Roberto]

Witness wrote:

Of course one can create all kind of "paradoxes" if one makes his conclusions based on the wrong premises.
Here is this premise
Quote:

The genocidal urge of “the police and the civilian administration”

I don't think that there is any existing evidence of the"genocidal urge " of "the police and the civilian administration"

Gerlach wrote (translated by Roberto) :

Many insisted on the murder of all European Jews, but before they could begin with it systematically, there was the need in the National Socialist system for a decision taken by Hitler.

(Erik’s emphasis).

And:

…the pressure by the police and parts of the civilian administration… in the direction of a large-scale extermination was already so great that it would have inevitably led to terrible consequences sooner or later.(Erik’s emphasis.)

Roberto wrote:

As German historian Christian Gerlach has plausibly argued, it is reasonable to assume that Hitler's order for the "final solution", 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.

(Erik’s emphasis).

Of course, it may be possible to deny the existence of evidence for such an insistence, pressure or initiatives, and that Gerlach and Roberto are sucking it out of their thumbs.

With the necessary amount of ignorance and true faith - which the philosopher certainly has - everything is possible. He doesn't even seems to have read what his much-admired Mills wrote on this very thread about a certain Gauleiter's initiative to bump off the Jews of the Warthegau with Himmler's approval before Hitler had even authorized the overall program.

I’m sure Roberto will be waving back at you again, “nicely”, like he does at Lisbon.

Now isn't it nice to see the poor philosopher, who I remember having come to this forum back in its Ezboard days with the intention of pissing people off, swallow his own medicine in ever greater quantities ?

I have more important things to do now than address the rest of the fellow's refuse - it seems he still hasn't understood the difference between executors of orders like Streckenbach and Ohlendorf and promoters/decision-makers like Himmler, Heydrich, Frank and Greiser - , so I'll come back later. If witness or someone else should feel like playing a little with our friend in the meantime, don't wait for me.

[Tarpon27]

Operation Barbarossa...June 22nd, 1941

Hitler's halts the T4 program...August 24th, 1941


For political reasons and that isn't "IDEOLOGY nor IDEOLOGICAL"...so one can learn how to spell it...and the T4 political fall-out certainly made it apparent to a master politican like Hitler, that while his own rhetoric would be safely dismissed years later by his apologists, by the summer of 1941, he was aware of what a disaster it was to have a public order for extermination of "undesirables".

All the rest is so much conjecture. Less evidence than rationalization, unless one wants to argue that Himmler did this on his own, that Hitler was unaware of the deportations of Europe's Jews starting in 1942 or the killing in the east following Barbarossa.

Or that a program the size of the Final Solution could exist without the approval of Hitler, let alone his support.

"I know nothing, NOTHING!"

---Sgt. Shultz, _Hogan's Heroes_

About as believable.

Short and concise, and to the point.

Regards,

Mark

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(h) In Nov 1942, According to a November, 1942, conversation between Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler and his friend and physiotherapist, Dr. Felix Kersten, Adolph Hitler ordered Himmler to begin a systematic extermination of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe. According to Kersten's account, Himmler had proposed that the Jews be "resettled" in Madagascar, but Hitler wasn't interested. Himmler believed that Propaganda Minister Dr. Paul Josef Goebbels had urged Hitler to begin physical extermination of the Jews. Kersten said Himmler stated: "For months and years, Goebbels kept exciting the Fuehrer to exterminate the Jews by radical means. Once the war had begun, he finally gained the upper hand." (Holo Levin 298) This extermination of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe was to be accomplished "by degrees." Himmler told Kersten: "[Hitler] gave this task to the SS and to me. I told him [Hitler], 'The SS is ready to fight and die, from myself down to the last man, but don't give us a mission like this.' The Fuehrer became furious and said, 'Himmler, you are being disobedient! . . . This is an order; I take the responsibility for it.'" (Holo Levin 298)

Kersten claims that Himmler told him three things:

1. That Himmler had proposed the Madagascar Plan but Hitler was not interested;

2. That Goebbels had gradually persuaded Hitler to exterminate the Jews, finally winning his agreement once the war started; and

3. That Himmler tried to reject Hitler's order to exterminate the Jews, and Hitler had become angry with him.

The first claim is demonstrably false. The initiative for the Madagascar Plan cam originally from the Foreign Ministry, where Rademacher worked on it. It was then taken up by the RSHA, which wished to monopolise all Jewish policy, and Eichmann worked on it for several months in 1940.

It is hardly likely that so much effort would have spent on the plan if Hitler had not been interested in it. The fact is that Hitler had supported all the various initiatives for making Germany "Jew-free" through emigration. The reasons why the Madagascar Plan was not pursued were that Britain refused to make peace and controlled the sea-lanes, and the decision to invad the Soviet Union opened up the possibility of expelling the Jws into the territory to be occupied.

The second proposition, that Goebbels was the initiator of the idea of extermination, and spent years persuading Hitler to accept it, is interesting. It was also propounded more recently by David Irving, who was trashed by the historiographical establishment for it. here does not seem to be much evidence for the idea.

The third claim is possible but unlikely. Hitler had after all given Himmler a very broad authorisation to take any measures he thought fit against hostile populations, and Himmler had not shied away from publicly announcing his appointment to the post of Reichskommissar fuer die Festigung deutschen Volkstums and the ominous authorisation that went with it. It seems unlikely therefore that Himmler would have quarrelled with Hitler over the killing of Jews, given that that was precisely the sort of thing he had been authorised to do in 1939, and against which he had protested at that time.

All in all, the three claims by Kersten lack any firm foundation, and are faulty in those cases where they can be checked against other evidence. I think they are to be rejected as examples of Kersten inflating his own importance by implying that Himmler would have revealed such crucial state secrets to him.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

i) On 26 Jan 1944, In a speech to a number of high-ranking German Army officers, Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler stated:
"When the Fuehrer gave me the order to carry out the total solution of the Jewish question, I at first hesitated, uncertain whether I could demand of my worthy SS men the execution of such a horrid assignment. . . . but this was ultimately a matter of a Fuehrer-order, and therefore I could have no misgivings. In the meantime, the assignment has been carried out, and there is no longer a Jewish question." (Fleming xxxii)

Although this is a recorded contemporary statement by Himmler, it occurs fairly late, and may not be a totally accurate explanation of how the mass killing of Jews (which by that date had claimed more than three million victims, according to contemporary estimates by observers) came to pass. The statement was actually made at a time when Himmler was trying to make contact with the Western Allies in order to negotiate an end to the war, and was using the remaining Jews as bargaining chips (eg a few months earlier, in September 1943, he had secretly allowed the Jews of Denmark to flee to Sweden, as a signal to the Allies of what could be arranged).

Even if Himmler had not received from Hitler an extermination order specifically aimed at the Jews as a whole, I am sure that, if one of the Army officers addressed had gone running off to Hitler and told him that the SS had exterminated a lot of Jews and Himmler was claiming a Fuehrer order, Hitler would not have been concerned, and would simply have taken the attitude that he, Hitler, had authorised Himmler to take all necessary measures to combat populations that posed a threat to the German people, and he had full confidence in Himmler to make the right decisions. It was Hitler's normal practice to give his subordinates wide-ranging, broadly defined powers, and to decline to enter into any discussion over how they exercised them.

As I recall, when Himmler had earlier addressed his own men on this same issue, giving his support for the killings they had carried out, he did not feel the need to refer back to a specific Fuehrer order. Rather, he referred back to the Party program (which of course had not called for physical extermination at all).

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(2) Heydrich

(a) In about Aug 1941 SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich, the head of the RSHA, Sipo and SD, summoned SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann to his Berlin offices and told Eichmann that Adolf Hitler had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews. Eichmann later described the scene and the order Heydrich gave him:
The final solution depends . . . it's mixed up with . . . something that happened after the start of the German-Russian war.
At that time [July 31, 1941] Reich Marshal Goering issued a document conferring a special title on the head of the Security Police and the SD [SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich]. I'm trying to remember the wording. Was it "Deputy Charged with the Final Solution," or was it "with the Solution of the Jewish Question"?
We can only be sure that it relates to the period when emigration had ceased to be possible and the more radical solution was resorted to. The war with the Soviet Union began in June 1941, I think. And I believe it was two months later, or maybe three, that Heydrich sent for me. I reported. He said to me: 'The Fuehrer, well, emigration is . . .' He began with a little speech. And then: 'The Fuehrer has ordered physical extermination.' These were his words. And as though wanting to test their effect on me, he made a long pause, which was not at all his way. I can still remember that. In the first moment, I didn't grasp the implications, because he chose his words so carefully. But then I understood. I didn't say anything, what could I say? Because I'd never thought of a . . . of such a thing, of that sort of violent solution. And then he said to me: 'Eichmann, go and see [SS-Brigadefuehrer Odilo] Globocnik in Lublin.' (Eichmann Interr 74-5)

In the early Autumn of 1941, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Karl Adolf Eichmann visited SS-Brigadefuehrer Odilo Globocnik, the Higher SS and Police Leader of Lublin, Poland: "[SS-Brigadefuehrer Odilo] Globocnik, the former Gauleiter of Vienna [later promoted to SS-Gruppenfuehrer], was then head of the SS and the police in the Lublin district of the Government General. Anyway, Heydrich said: 'Go and see Globocnik, the Fuehrer has already given him instructions. Take a look and see how he's getting on with his program. I believe he's using Russian anti-tank trenches for exterminating the Jews.' As ordered, I went to Lublin, located the headquarters of SS and Police Commander Globocnik, and reported to the Gruppenfuehrer. I told him Heydrich had sent me, because the Fuehrer had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews."
(Eichmann Interr 74-76)

[This appears to be a description of a single incident, with confused dates].

The above account, given by Eichmann to his Israeli interrogators in 1960, is essentially the same as the one he gave to Sassen in 1957, when he was still at liberty. It therefore represents Eichmann's own recollection of a real incident; whther it is totally accurate, or has been distorted to som extent by later influences or Eichmann's own rationalisations is something we cannot know for sure.

Obviously, Heydrich did tell Eichmann something; I doubt that Eichmann made that up, given his generally unimaginative nature. The question is, what and when.

If Heydrich at the same interview told Eichmann to go off to Lublin to observe how Globocnik was exterminating the Jews ( specifically of the Generalgouvernement, and only the 60% that could not be used for labour, according to Goebbels), then the interview could only have taken place in the early spring of 1942, not in August or early autumn of 1941, since at the latter earlier dates there would have been nothing to observe. Accordingly, it seems most likely to me that what Heydrich told Eichmann was that Globocnik had received an assignment to deport the Jews of the Generalgouvernement and to kill those unusable for labour; since Globocnik was not under the RSHA, but as SSPF Lublin reported directly to Himmler through the HSSPF Krueger, Heydrich wanted Eichmann to find out exactly what Globocnik was doing.

It is noteworthy that Eichmann states that Globocnik had received his instructions from the Fuehrer (or more precisely, that Heydrich had said that). However, from what I have read, all reconstructions by historians of the process whereby Aktion Reinhardt was set in train in the Generalgouvernement (and they are reconstructions, there being no conclusive documentary evidence) suggest that Globocnik received his instructions from Himmler, to whom he reported directly; there is no clear evidence of a direct contact between Globocnik and Hitler.

There are accordingly two possibilities;

1. Heydrich did indeed say that Globocnik had received extermination instructions from Hitler, even though that was not strictly true;

2. Heydrich did not say that Globocnik had received his instructions from Hitler, but rather said they came from Himmler, or did not specify the course of transmission of the instructions, and Eichmann's memory has simply become confused over time.

Whatever the case was, I consider that Eichmann's account given to Sassen in 1957 and repeated to Israeli interrogators in 1960 cannot be accepted as proof positive that Hitler did give a specific order to exterminate all Jews, to Heydrich or anyone else, given the obvious anomalies in that account.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(b) In Sept 1941 SS-Gruppenfuehrer Bruno Streckenbach, chief of personnel for the RSHA, whose job included selecting Einsatzgruppen personnel, brought up the subject of mass exterminations with Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler and RSHA chief SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich. Heydrich told Streckenbach "that it was pointless to criticize this operation or to oppose it. This was strictly a matter of a Fuehrer-order; for in connection with this war, which represented the final, violent clash of two irreconcilably opposed world views, the Fuehrer had expressed his resolve to find simultaneously a solution to the Jewish problem." (Fleming 52)

I presume that the above was a claim made by Streckenbach after his return from Soviet captivity in the mid-1950s.

It follows the same pattern as similar statments made by other Einsatzgruppen leaders, ie "I protested against the killing of the Jews but was told that it had been ordered by the Fuehrer and I should butt out etc etc". Accordingly, it is an attempt at self-exculpation, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, some of the formulations used by Streckenbach ring true, and probably do represent something said by Himmler, or Heydrich, or both, on some occasion. It is entirely likely that Streckenbach heard a reference made to the "violent clash of two irreconcilably opposed world views", and also quite possible that he was told that the Jews were the main supporters of the enemy world view and hence would have to be destroyed (at least the Soviet Jws).

Alternatively, Streckenbach could have been told that Hitler had decided to use the war with the Soviet Union to solve the "Jewish Problem" in the rest of Europe by deporting the Jews into the occupied Soviet territories. In Streckenbach's reproduction of Heydrich's words, the specific nature of Hitler's "resolve" is not made explicit.

[michael mills]

David Thompson wrote:

(c) In May 1942, during the course of a very heated discussion with several intelligence officers in Prague, including Armed Forces Intelligence Chief Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich stated that the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office) was not behind the extermination of the Jews, but that it was done on a personal order from the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. (Fleming xxv 59-60)

I cannot really comment meaningfully on the above without knowing the source of the description of the claimed discussion between Heydrich and Canaris. I presume it comes from a postwar statement by someone who claimed to have witnessed it or heard about it, given that neither Heydrich nor Canaris was around to confirm the details.

I am however puzzled at the suggestion that Heydrich would have found it necessary to deny his responsibility for what was being done to the Jews, and to shift the responsibility to Hitler. Everything we know about Heydrich confirms that he was very jealous of his own power, that he sought to centralise all policy relating to Jews under his own authority, and that he tolerated no questioning or interference from anyone. I am sure that if anyone had questioned the authority of the RSHA to carry out measures against Jews, or anyone else for that matter, Hydrich would have just told them curtly to butt out.