"Aktion Reinhardt" -- What did it denote?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23588
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 16 Dec 2004 21:29

Earldor wrote:
It may suit your agenda to say that Globocnik was sent to Trieste in disgrace, but I don't see anything to support that. He was promoted to SS-Obergruppenführer by Himmler and rose to a higher status (HSSPF as opposed to SSPF, http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/pic/ ... ppoint.jpg). He had been promoted earlier to SS-Gruppenführer and he was thanked by Himmler for the successful completion of his duties. I simply see no evidence of disgrace.

The fact is irrelant to the disgrace issue, but Globocnik's highest rank was SS-Gruppenfuehrer. See the bio note on fellow moderator Michael Miller's excellent ABR site:
GLOBOCNIK, Dipl.-Ing. Odilo Lotario ("Globus") (DKiG; DKiS)
(1904 - 1945)
SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Polizei / Staatssekretär / Gauleiter a.D. / M.d.R.:
Born: 21. 04. 1904 in Trieste.
Suicide: 31. 05. 1945, by cyanide in Karavanken Alps, Carinthia to escape capture by the British.
NSDAP-Nr.: 442 939 (Joined Austrian NSDAP, 1922; Joined German NSDAP, 1. Jan. 1931)
SS-Nr.: 292 776 (First joined, 1. Sep. 1932; dismissed, 1939; readmitted, Nov. 1939)
Promotions:
SS-Gruf.u.Gen.Lt.d.Pol.: 9.11.1942; Gen.Maj. d.Pol.: 9.09.1941; SS-Brigf.: 9.11.1939; SS-UStuf. d.R. (W-SS): ; SS-Staf.: 12.03.1938;
Assignments:
HSSPF "Adriatisches Küstenland" (HQ: Trieste): 13.09.1943 - 05.1945.
Appointed Staatssekretär by order of Reichsführer-SS (Himmler): 4.07.1943.
Appointed Hauptbereichsleiter der NSDAP: 9.11.1941.
Beauftragter des Reichsführers SS für die Errichtung der SS und von Polizeistützpunkten im neuen Ostraum: 17.07.1941 - 31.01.1942.
SSPF "Lublin", Generalgouvernement: 3.11.1939 - 16.08.1943.
Gauleiter von Wien: 22.05.1938 - 30.01.1939 (dismissed due to corruption).
Appointed Staatssekretär in Seyss-Inquart government: 15.03.1938.
Decorations & Awards:
Deutsches Kreuz in Gold: 7.02.45;
Deutsches Kreuz in Silber: 20.01.45;
1939 EK II: 1939; KVK I m. Schw.: ; KVK II m. Schw.:;
Bandenkampfabzeichen in Silber: 17.09.44;
Medaille zur Erinnerung an den 13. Marz 1938;
Goldenes Parteiabzeichen: ;
Dienstauszeichnungen der NSDAP in Silber und Bronze;
Ehrendegen des RF SS/Totenkopfring der SS.

http://www.geocities.com/%7Eorion47/SS- ... f_A-G.html

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8917
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 16 Dec 2004 21:35

I will attempt here a synthesis of my views on this matter for the information of readers, so that readers can see what they are as opposed to what Earldor alleges that they are.

As I have written, it appears to me that the legal basis for the seizure by the German Reich of the property of deported Jews was the Eleventh Supplementary Ordinance to the Reich Citizenship Law, signed on 25 November 1941. That ordinance provided that any Jew of German nationality who ceased to reside in Germany lost his German citizenship and his property was forfeited to the German Reich. Therefore, it allowed the sequestration of the property of any Jews who was deported beyond the borders of the Reich.

At the time of the signing of that ordinance, only German Jews were being deported to the East, a process that had began in mid-October with the deportation of German Jews to Lodz, followed by the deportations to Minsk in November, and continued with the deportations to Riga from the beginning of December 1941 to the end of January 1942.

There must have been a bureaucratic process whereby the property of the German Jews deported to the East was sequestrated under the Eleventh Supplementary Ordinance, but I do not have any knowledge of the precise details, ie which agency of the German Reich carried out the sequestration. That is an area that could do with some research.

As I have pointed out, the wording of the Eleventh Supplementary Ordinance suggests that the Reich Ministry of Finance had the ultimate responsibility for the sequestration of the property of deported Jews. The representative of the Ministry of Finance in relation to the Eleventh Supplementary ordinance was State Secreatry Fritz Reinhardt, and I have suggested that the surname of that person was the origin of the code-name "Aktion Reinhardt" that later appears in relation to the process of property seizure.

Later documents show the WVHA administering "Aktion Reinhardt" in relation to the process of processing confiscated Jewish property. That must have come about because of the delivery of Jews to the concentration camps administered by the WVHA. That process had its origin in a directive issued by Himmler at the end of January 1942, according to which 150,000 of the Jews being deported from Germany were to be diverted to concentration camps for important economic tasks.

In the event, it was not German Jews who were first sent to concentration camps for labour, but rather Jews from Slovakia, followed by Jews from Western Europe. The Jews from Slovakia began arriving at Auschwitz toward the end of March 1942.

Once Jews began arriving at the concentration camps, the Directorate of Concentration Camps became involved in the management of the sequetration of the property of those Jews, a task that later fell to the WVHA after it was formed in April 1942 and the Directorate of Concentration Camps was absorbed into it. It is in the correspondence of the WVHA that the code-name "Aktion Reinhardt" first appears.

The other process that began in March 1942 was the deportation to the East of Jews from the Lublin District, with those fit for labour being sent to labour camps and those unfit for labour being sent to extermination camps, as documented in the Goebbels diary entry of 27 March 1942.

Since the Lublin District was in many ways the private "kingdom" of Globocnik, he was put in charge of the deportation operation, as Goebbels says in his diary entry.

Globocnik was also in charge of the process of seizing the property of the deported Jews, both the property left behind in the ghettos and the property seized when they arrived at labour camps or extermination camps. It appears that he kept that process entirely in his own hands, setting up a branch within his SSPF office in Lublin to handle it; his men who were deputed to that task were not under the authority of the WVHA, or had any connection with it.

The deportation action was soon extended from Lublin District to the whole of the Generalgouvernement, and Globocnik retained his control over the operation, both over the deportation and over the seizure of the property of the deported Jews and the output of the Jews sent to labour camps.

It is in that sense that Globocnik was the administrator of "Aktion Reinhardt", ie over the sequestration of Jewish property, within the Generalgouvernement. There is no indication that he had control over the operation of "Aktion Reinhardt" outside the Generalgouvernement, for example at KL Auschwitz.

As stated, Globocnik kept firm control over "Aktion Reinhardt" in the Gneralgouvernment, down to the storing of the sequestrated Jewish property at warehouses in Lublin controlled by his men, not by the WVHA or any other Reich agency.

At some point Globocnik had to hand over the confiscated Jewish property, either to the WVHA or the Reich Ministry of Finance. It is clear that the WVHA and the Ministry of Finance were unhappy with the way Globocnik handled the property; there were suspicions that he siphoning off a large portion for himself. That explains the exculpatory note in Globocnik's final report to Himmler, in which he alludes to accusations of dishonesty against him.

Once the problems resulting from Globocnik's management of "Aktion Reinhardt" within the territory of the Generalgouvernment (but not elsewhere) were resolved through his removal from the area and "kicking him upstairs" to the position of HSSPF in Trieste, the WVHA moved in to take control of his economic operations in the Lublin District.

It is clear from the WVHA documents that "Aktion Reinhardt" continued under WVHA administration even after the disappearance of Globocnik from Lublin. That is not at all surprising, since Jews continued to be sent to concentration camps, primarily KL Auschwitz, where the property they had brought with them was confiscated.

For example, a considerable amount of property was seized from the large numbers of Hungarian Jews that arrived at Auschwitz in the early summer of 1944. It would be a useful exercise to research the relevant documents to determine whether the codeword "Aktion Reinhardt" was applied to the processing of that property by the WVHA.

User avatar
Earldor
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 00:35
Location: Finland

Post by Earldor » 16 Dec 2004 22:50

David Thompson wrote: The fact is irrelant to the disgrace issue, but Globocnik's highest rank was SS-Gruppenfuehrer.
Ok, my memory failed here. I stand corrected.

User avatar
Earldor
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 00:35
Location: Finland

Post by Earldor » 16 Dec 2004 22:55

michael mills wrote: I will attempt here a synthesis of my views on this matter for the information of readers, so that readers can see what they are as opposed to what Earldor alleges that they are.
I know that this is a synthesis of your view, and I'm sure everyone can make up their minds just fine but I still don't see anything proving or supporting the non-existant, ad-hoc bridges between the separate issues you have fashioned. Furthermore, you have once again neglected to address the evidence presented to you and instead spewed out the "old party line."

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8917
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 17 Dec 2004 00:44

What evidence have I ignored?

That Globocnik gave the name "Einsatz Reinhard" to a section within his SSPF office in Lublin, staffed with his own men subordinate to him as SSPF Lublin? That that section had the task of managing the liquidation of the ghettos and deporting their inhabitants either to labour camps or extermination camps? That that section also managed the collection and processing of the property seized from the deported Jews?

I have already addressed those issues.

I have suggested that Globocnik placed the management of the collection and processing of the seized Jewish property (ie "Aktion Reinhardt" proper) in the hands of the same section as managed the deportation because he wanted to keep the entire operation under his control and wanted to exclude other Reich agencies which might question his competence (given his existing reputation for gross corruption).

I have suggested that in his correspondence Globocnik used the spelling "Reinhard" as a means of psychologically distancing himself from Fritz Reinhardt, who was his enemy and one of those who regarded him as corrupt.

Be that as it may, he was eventually brought into line, since by 1943 he is using the correct designation "Aktion Reinhardt".

It is noteworthy that in the testimony given by Dr Konrad Morgen before the IMT in the case against the SS, that witness claimed that Wirth and the men under him who staffed the killing centres visited by him were not part of an SS unit, but were personnel under the authority of the Führer Chancellory.

Also noteworthy is the post-war testimony of Wirth's adjutant, Oberhauser, who claimed that Wirth and other personnel of the euthanasia program T-4 were seconded to Globocnik to carry out experiments at Belzec using first the killing technology employed in the euthanasia program (bottled CO) and then switching to engine exhaust, and that when the experiments were completed Wirth and his men returned to Berlin, only to be subsequnetly recalled by Globocnik.

Both testimonies suggest a clear organisational distinction between Globocnik and his SSPF office in Lublin, which managed the deportation of the Jews from the ghettos of the Generalgouvernement and also the handling of the property seized from them, and Wirth and his T-4 personnel who staffed the extermination camps and did the killing there.

User avatar
Earldor
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 00:35
Location: Finland

Post by Earldor » 17 Dec 2004 01:19

michael mills wrote:What evidence have I ignored?
All of it.

You have concocted a story based on losely related matters and shown no evidence to back up your hypothesis, all the while trying to ignore, distort or belittle the documentary evidence presented. Not to mention the evidence collected by many historians.

Remember, that all you have presented so far, besides your assertions, is the US court case on Pohl and so far, I've seen no one who agrees with your interpretation of it.

[fantasy snipped away]

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 17 Dec 2004 01:35

Earldor:
I'd like to quote the document 4024-PS to reinforce my point (unfortunately I don't have the original German one).

Why do you think that Globocnik writes:

"However the recognition given me for the Action also impels me to give you, Reichsfuehrer, an account of the economic side, in order that you, Reichsfuehrer, may thereby see that in this respect also, the work was in order."
(emphasis by Earldor.)

What other ”work was in order”, and in what other ”respect”?

Earldor:
We need to have the knowledge of the "expulsion" (or "deportation", the term used a bit later) and the sheer size of it to realize what that simple, innocuous term entails.
Mr. Kaschner quoted:
[…]Globocnik himself stated that:
The entire Action Reinhardt is divided into four spheres: A. The expulsion itself. B. The employment of labour. C. The exploitation of property. D. Seizure of hidden goods and landed property.
In this quote, ”A.” is ”expulsion”, which is that ”work” of AR (see first Globocnik quote above) that is not ”economical” in the same way as ”B”, ”C” and ”D” are.

So: in order to answer Earldor’s question…
Why do you think that Globocnik writes:

[…]in this respect also, the work was in order. (emphasis by Earldor.)
we must know that
[…]even though the documents only allude to the extermination of the GG Jews, that was the main objective of the operation.
”Expulsion” = extermination was the main objective of the operation, i.e., number ”A” in order.
The US court, while in possession of many of the documents, was not able to draw the right conclusions as to the primacy of the economic side, or our reading of the decision is wrong. I believe that the reason that the tribunal may say that the gist of AR was economic was that the court didn't have all the facts.
The US court was mislead by the fact that the AR camps were placed in Poland? That looked like ”expulsion” instead of ”extermination” to them, since ”extermination” would appear to have been easier to execute in camps situated inside Germany, the home of the Nazis. The court didn’t have all the facts about the death camps that was ”brought aboard” later:
The fact remains that the later court cases and studies by historians has brought aboard a wealth of knowledge, that has led to nearly all historians to conclude that the primary purpose of the AR was to eliminate the Jewish population of the GG. The fact that the man in charge of the operation was Globus, not Pohl, is crucial in this matter.
Later court cases and studies by historians has brought aboard a wealth of knowledge” concerning the camps placed inside Germany proper, making it clear that the elimination must have been taking place in Poland instead of in Germany, and ”the fact that the man in charge of the operation was Globus, not Pohl, is crucial in this matter”, since we now have ”a wealth of knowledge” about this man Globus and his camps, thanks to the historians.

Less is known about Pohl now than was known then, on the other hand – just like we know more nowadays about the gas chambers of Treblinka, than we know about the gas chamber of Dachau.

Repeat I :
I believe that the reason that the tribunal may say that the gist of AR was economic was that the court didn't have all the facts.


From Mr. Kaschners posting on side 3 of the present thread:
In this compounded crime of genocide, the WVHA played a very essential part. This extermination of peoples, this mass deportationof slave labor in concentration camps, gave rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale. To the defendant Pohl and his collaborators in the WVHA fell the task of collecting that property and mustering those slaves for use by the Third Reich.
(emphasis added).
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... fca#598732

Repeat II :
We need to have the knowledge of the "expulsion" (or "deportation", the term used a bit later) and the sheer size of it to realize what that simple, innocuous term entails.
The court apparently had the knowledge to call the ”mass deportation of slave labor” an ”extermination of peoples”, and in the same breath, without having ”all the facts”, according to Earldor.

Perhaps the term ”extermination” entailed a more ”simple, innocuous” sense in their parlance instead?

A U.S. court maybe saw those terms in a ”precedent” historical ”Redskin” sense, rather than in a Holocaust one, realizing where their U.S. ”property” came from? :?

From an emphasized part of Mr. Kaschner’s posting again:
It was the task of special staff "G" to seize and account for all property in the Government General of occupied Poland derived from the extermination and enslavement of Jews. This ghoulish program was called "Action Reinhardt" presumably in honor of Reinhard Heydrich who was assassinated in the summer of 1942.
What later ”facts” could improve on the ”knowledge” of the court concerning either the ”sheer size” (”all the property”) or the ”ghoulish” (”extermination and enslavement”) aspects of the program?

Why did they put ”extermination” and ”enslavement” side by side? Exterminated Jews cannot very well be enslaved?

Earldor again:
And even though the documents only allude to the extermination of the GG Jews, that was the main objective of the operation. In other words, the primary objective of the Aktion Reinhardt was to eliminate the GG Jews, and later others as well, and the secondary objective was to profit economically from the primary objective. "Waste not", was the German thinking here.
Globus and the U.S. court agree with Earldor : ”Expulsion” was point ”A” to Globus, and ”extermination” was put before ”enslavement” by the court – i.e., ”primary objective” to both.
This extermination of peoples, this mass deportation of slave labor in concentration camps, gave rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale.
(emphasis added.)

”Primary objective”, indeed!

The court didn’t write…

The confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale, gave rise to this extermination of peoples, this mass deportation of slave labor in concentration camps.

…did they?

But on the other hand:
It was a program of deliberate wholesale brigandage which was, at the same time, an added aspect of the extermination program. [Note that in the Court's view, Action Reinhardt was not the extermination program itself, but an aspect added to it.]
(Mr. Kaschner’s quote, emphasis and comment.)

Mr. Kaschner wrote:
In my view what is needed, assuming the findings of the Military Tribunal are insufficient or in doubt, is a firm focus on the issue: i.e., why was Action Reinhardt formed, what was its specific purpose, and what was the source of its name - together with a greater and more focused assembly and critical analysis of whatever evidence may be out there; and much less emotional reaction and ready acceptance of preconceived notions, which may or may not have firm evidential support.

I know this is a peripheral and certainly not a critical issue, and surely pales into insignificance[…]
Perhaps this last aspect is the critical issue?

If other aspects than the emotional and ready ”ghoulish” one of extermination and elimination are added to the reaction and accepted notion of the Holocaust (like the ”t” to ”Reinhard”), the ”firm evidential support” of it will eventually pale?

If a court pales its ”findings” in the following way…
This extermination of peoples, this mass deportation of slave labor in concentration camps, gave rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale.
…by making the Holocaust look like the rest of our inhuman history that Mr. Kaschner once marvelled at how anyone could not see….
Paul 278 wrote:

Quote:
I really cannot in anyway see how one can dehumanize a child, to the extent that one could kill it, and its mother and father.



I marvel at how sheltered a life Paul 278 must have led! No newspapers, no magazines, no TV, no history books, not even the Bible! The most recent events of the last few weeks in Israel, in Iraq, in Beslan all seem to have passed him by, unnoticed and unmarked. His unwillingness to accept the testimony of thousands of witnesses and centuries of history to the inhumanity of man is indeed touching, but it touches me as somewhat curious and perhaps - but only perhaps - just a wee bit disingenuous.

But of course I do admit to being a cynical old geezer by nature.

Regards, Kaschner
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 489#537489

…..then perhaps the following assessment by Prof. Browning will look different?
I believe that the Holocaust was a watershed event in human history -- the most extreme case of genocide that has yet occurred. What distinguishes it from other genocides are two factors: first, the totality and scope of intent -- that is, the goal of killing every last Jew, man, and women, and child, throughout the reach of the Nazi empire; and second, the means employed -- namely, the harnessing to the adminstrative/bureacratic and technological capacities of a modern nation-state and western scientific culture.

Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers, p. 32
The harnessing to the adminstrative/bureacratic and technological capacities of a modern nation-state and western scientific culture” will perhaps once again give ”rise to the confiscation, or to put it more precisely, the theft of property on a gigantic scale” (the US court above)?

The murder of women and children will be known already.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 17 Dec 2004 04:10

Why do I think that the extermination of the Jews is entailed in under the "expulsion/deportation" title? Among other things, Globus hints at the AR death camps: "For reasons of surveillance in each camp a small farm was created which is occupied by an expert. An income must regularly be paid to him so that he can maintain the small farm."
Right. But the main point, of course,is that whether or not expulsion entailed extermination, it is still not an economic operation, the point with which our opponents prefer not to deal with.

Neither can they explain the Hoefle telegram, nor the "field ovens Aktion Reinahrdt".

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 17 Dec 2004 04:14

There is no indication that he had control over the operation of "Aktion Reinhardt" outside the Generalgouvernement, for example at KL Auschwitz.
While recently I agreed with MM that AR was being conducted at Auschwitz, and I even thought that Pohl's itinerary supported this view, I now think that what happened at Auschwitz, (somewhere at "Station 2 Aktion Reinhard" as per Pohl's itinerary) was simple sorting/repair of Jews belongings from elsewhere. E.g. watches acquired during the AR were being repaired.
This in itseld hardly means that AR was going on inside Auschwitz.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 17 Dec 2004 04:18

By the way, in Hoefle's telegram "Einsatz Reinhart" probably is a typo for "Einsatz Reinhardt".

User avatar
Earldor
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 00:35
Location: Finland

Post by Earldor » 18 Dec 2004 17:03

Sergey Romanov wrote: By the way, in Hoefle's telegram "Einsatz Reinhart" probably is a typo for "Einsatz Reinhardt".
Or an error made in the decoding of the message, as Peter Witte and Stephen Tyas say in their article "A New Document on the Deportation and Murder of Jews during "Einsatz Reinhardt" 1942":
  • "This document was uncovered among recently declassified material at the Public Record Office in Kew, England and comprises two partially intercepted "state secret" radio messages from Lublin, General Gouvernement. Both are dated January 11, 1943, the second following within five minutes of the first. [...] Due to receiving problems, the message sent to Eichmann was only partially intercepted and decoded by British Intelligence. The second message to Heim is much more complete. Again, this message was only partially intercepted, as can be seen from a gap in the transcription."
    Holocaust and Genocide Studies, V15 N3, Winter 2001 pp.468-470.
But most likely simply the spelling used by Höfle's office.

I'll refer to this same article throughout this reply. Emphasis always mine, unless otherwise indicated. The numbers in brackets are footnotes. I've listed only the footnotes I thought were relevant to this discussion. Spelling mistakes most likely mine :P

More on the telegram:
  • "The subject of the radio telegram reads "fortnightly report Einsatz Reinhart [sic]." The same idiosyncratic spelling Einsatz Reinhart appears in both the printed and the typewritten office letterheads of Höfle's section in Globocnik's staff [6]. Whether this reflects Höfle's inability to spell is not clear, though the latter is well documented[7]."
    p.471

    "It should be noted that the figures in Höfle's telegram include only the numbers of murders in the extermination camps. Three of them were devoted extermination camps, where those unable to work were shot and the huge majority gassed. Lublin, however, was a regular concentration camp; from October 1942 three gas chambers were used to murder prisoners after selections of those deemed unable to work. The number culled during selections in Majdanek from October onwards is known: their sum is much lower than the figures given in Höfle's radio telegram. As the document indicates, the murder of Jews transported to Lublin without being registered at the concentration camp became an integral prat of Einsatz Reinhardt from an unspecified date onward. Further research, one hopes, will hopefully permit more precise information."
    p.473

    "The subject line of Höfle's radio telegram reads Einsatz Reinhart. The term Einsatz was apparently the original one in use from June 1942 on, but certainly less often in 1943; the extermination camps Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka were officially called "camps of Einsatz Reinhardt." New personnel assigned to these camps by the Chancellery of the Führer - that is the euthanasia organization T-4 - had to undergo instruction by Hermann Höfle in Lublin and then to sign a secrecy agreement as "specially commissioned persons for the execution of tasks in the resettlement of Jews, Einsatz Reinhardt." Officially they were designated "SS-Sonderkommandos Einsatz Reinhard."[31] Einsatz is the term the perpetrators on Globocnik's staff used themselves in their correspondance during 1942. On the other hand, the term Aktion did not occur before mid-September 1942 as far as we can ascertain. It seems to have been used first in the SS Economics and Administration Main Office (WVHA) and its Inspectorate of Concentration Camps, and only later, in 1943, by Globocnik and Himmler themselves.

    [...]

    Similarly, the spelling Reinhardt is to be recommended instead of Reinhard (which was sometimes used by Globocnik and others), or the seemingly more private spelling Reinhart appearing in the new document and typically used in Höfle's office."
    p. 474

    "As far as is known, the codename Reinhardt for the mass murder first appeared immediately after Heydrich's death in June 1942. [38] Concerning the spelling, there is irrefutable proof - for the German bureaucrats at least, as it had to be approved by the Reich Ministry of Interior - in the form of one of Globocnik's official stamps displaying the Reich Eagle in the center and the inscription Der SS- und Polizeiführer im Distrikt Lublin - Einsatz Reinhardt. [39]. The most extensive and important file on Aktion Reinhardt, the final reports of Globocnik (including two notes by Himmler), have the dt-spelling, in all fifteen times. [40] Much more documentary evidence is available. [41]"
    p. 475

    "Himmler's "Special Order Reinhardt" (Sonderauftrag Reinhardt - no date is given) can be found in an enumeration of Globocnik's various tasks in his files. [45]"
    p. 475
Footnotes:
[6] Letter from Höfle's office clerk SS-Oberscharführer Franz Hoskowetz to the Commander of the Security Police and the SD Lublin, September 26, 1942; copying Archives of IfZ München, Fb 95/23; see also "Abteilg. Reinhart" in a letter from SSPF Lublin (Hoskowetz) to Section Population and Welfare Lublin, September 4, 1942; printed in Kermisz, Dokumenty i materialy, vol.2, p. 39.

[7] See Joseph Wulf, Vollstrecker, pp. 277-79, for a number of stunning examples.

[31] Letter of Globocnik to SS Main Office and SS-Gruppenführer von Herff, April 13, 1943, printed in Faschismus, Getto, Massenmord, pp. 301-2.

[38] Letter from Waffen SS Standortverwaltung Lublin, SS-Stubaf Wippern, to SS- u. Polizeiführer Reinhardt, June 6, 1942; printed in Kermisz, Dokumenty i materialy, vol. 2, p. 182; copy in Archives IfZ München, Fb 95/23, fol. 576; see Pohl, Distrikt Lublin, p. 130, n. 94.

[39] Stamp on the copy of a letter by Höfle, September 9, 1942, in Helge Grabitz and Wolfgang Scheffler, Letzte Spuren. Ghetto Warschau, SS Arbeitslager Trawniki, Aktion Erntefest. Fotos und Dokumente über Opfer des Endlösungswahns im Spiegel der historischen Ereignisse (Berlin: Edition Hentrich, 1993), p. 68.

[40] See n. 34.

[34] See Richard Breitman and Shlomo Aronson, "Eine unbekannte Himmler-Rede wom Januar 1943," Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 38 (1990), p. 340. Most historians rerferred the Aktion to Reinhard Heyrich. The well-known hypothesis of Robert L. Koehl, Uwe Dietrich Adam, Wolfgang Benz, the Institut für Zeitgeschichte München, et al. that Einsatz or Aktion Reinhardt was named after State Secretary of Finance Fritz Reinhardt is highly questionable. The only interesting reference to the Reich Ministry of Finance to be found in the archives of the IfZ is a Declaration on Oath by Bruno Melmer, Nuremberg, February 11, 1948 (NG-4983). Fritz Reinhardt is not mentioned at all. Another serious problem is that Melmer reported important events for May 1942 which actually took place in mid-August 1942. It will be difficult to explain why Einsatz or Aktion Reinhardt should have been named after a State Secretary whose ministry first became involved in the Aktion over two months after the first known occurrence of the code name.

[41] The authors checked thirty-four copies of original documents: twenty-two documents had Reinhardt thirty-five times, eleven documents had Reinhard fifteen times, and one had both spellings. There can be no question of an equal use of both spellings.

[45] Radio telegram from SS-Brigadeführer Adolf Katz (SS Personnel Main Office) to SS-Sturmbannführer Wilhelm Kment (official for conferring medals in Himmler's Personal Staff), January 15, 1945, BAB, BDC, SSO Odilo Globocnik.

More on the subject http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... torder=asc

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8917
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 18 Dec 2004 22:38

[34] See Richard Breitman and Shlomo Aronson, "Eine unbekannte Himmler-Rede wom Januar 1943," Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 38 (1990), p. 340. Most historians rerferred the Aktion to Reinhard Heyrich. The well-known hypothesis of Robert L. Koehl, Uwe Dietrich Adam, Wolfgang Benz, the Institut für Zeitgeschichte München, et al. that Einsatz or Aktion Reinhardt was named after State Secretary of Finance Fritz Reinhardt is highly questionable. The only interesting reference to the Reich Ministry of Finance to be found in the archives of the IfZ is a Declaration on Oath by Bruno Melmer, Nuremberg, February 11, 1948 (NG-4983). Fritz Reinhardt is not mentioned at all. Another serious problem is that Melmer reported important events for May 1942 which actually took place in mid-August 1942. It will be difficult to explain why Einsatz or Aktion Reinhardt should have been named after a State Secretary whose ministry first became involved in the Aktion over two months after the first known occurrence of the code name.
In fact, State Secretary Fritz Reinhardt was involved in the process of sequestrating the property of deported Jews since late November 1941, when he was the signatory representing the Reich Ministry of Finance to the Eleventh Supplementary Ordiance to the Reich Citizenship Law, which provided the legal authority for that sequestration.

So Reinhardt's ministry was involved in the process of seizing Jewish property from the outset, well before the code-name "Aktion Reinhardt" first appears in documents.

Perhaps Tyas and Witte were unaware of the the Eleventh Supplementary Ordinance, and that is why they got it wrong on this point.


[41] The authors checked thirty-four copies of original documents: twenty-two documents had Reinhardt thirty-five times, eleven documents had Reinhard fifteen times, and one had both spellings. There can be no question of an equal use of both spellings.
What is important is not so much the number of times the different spellings are used, but the pattern of usage.

Except for one occurrence, the spellings "Reinhard" and "Reinhart" are used only in documents prepared in Globocnik's SSPF office in Lublin, and in replies from Himmler's office to Globocnik.

The one exception is the WVHA document referring to a visit by personnel from KL Auschwitz to Litzmannstadt to inspect a test-station for "field ovens", which refers to "Aktion Reinhard". In that case the WVHA official who prepared might be quoting a name used in inward correspondence.

So the question is why Globocnik's office regularly used the aberrant spellings, particularly in 1942. One possibility is that they simply a mistake. The alternative explanation is that the aberrant usage was deliberate, an attempt by Globocnik to distance the task he had been given by Himmler from the name of his enemy State Secretary Reinhardt and to associate it with the name of Reinhard Heydrich, obviously a more congenial association from Globocnik's point of view.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1984
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Post by Sergey Romanov » 19 Dec 2004 03:17

So Reinhardt's ministry was involved in the process of seizing Jewish property from the outset, well before the code-name "Aktion Reinhardt" first appears in documents.
Not that you proved that Einsatz Reinhardt was done according to that law.

Anyway that question - whether this action was named for some or other, seems mainly based on speculation.
So the question is why Globocnik's office regularly used the aberrant spellings
This is not a question that means anything.
The one exception is the WVHA document referring to a visit by personnel from KL Auschwitz to Litzmannstadt to inspect a test-station for "field ovens", which refers to "Aktion Reinhard". In that case the WVHA official who prepared might be quoting a name used in inward correspondence.
Which proves that Aktion Reinhardt was not a mere "economic" operation, for such do not need field ovens.

And, of course, let's not forget about Globocnik, who was the head of Aktion Reinhardt, and who clearly stated that deportation of the Jews was part of Aktion Reinhardt (which, of course, implies their extermination too).

ehlerner
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 15 Oct 2004 04:14
Location: Greenwich Village, New York City

Post by ehlerner » 19 Dec 2004 05:14

[quote="David Thompson"]ehlerner -- Thanks for posting those very interesting documents.[/quote]

You are very welcome. Thank you for the forum.

Joyous holidays to all!

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8917
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 19 Dec 2004 06:23

Sergey Romanov wrote:
And, of course, let's not forget about Globocnik, who was the head of Aktion Reinhardt, and who clearly stated that deportation of the Jews was part of Aktion Reinhardt (which, of course, implies their extermination too).
Actually, the documentary evidence states that Globocnik carried out Aktion Reinhardt within the Generalgouvernement.

It does not show that Globocnik was the head of the whole of Aktion Reinhardt, which also operated outside the Generalgouvernement.

The documents other than those generated in Globocnik's office show Aktion Reinhardt being administered by the WVHA, of which Pohl was head. That is why the administration of Aktion Reinhardt was one of the charges against Pohl at his trial before the NMT.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”