Primary Evidence about Hitler
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
Translation:
HITLER BANS PUBLIC REFERENCE TO THE "FINAL SOLUTION OF THE JEWISH QUESTION," JULY 11, 1943
National-Socialist German Workers' Party
Party Secretariat
Head of the Party Secretariat
Führer Headquarters, July 11, 1943
Circular No. 33/43 g. Re: Treatment of the Jewish Question
On instructions from the Führer I make known the following :
Where the Jewish Question is brought up in public, there may be no discussion of a future overall solution (Gesamtlösung).
It may, however, be mentioned that the Jews are taken in groups for appropriate labor purposes.
signed M. Bormann
Distribution: Reichsleiter
Gauleiter Group leaders
File Reference: Treatment/Jews
NO—2710.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
Kiseli - that's the whole point; "On instructions from the Führer", "In the name of the Führer" etc., etc.....Its Bormann's signature at the bottom, not Hitler's. As we know now, there were a large number of activities and actions undertaken by various Nazi underlings on hearing random comments or "table talk" ramblings, and also by high-ranking Nazis, and labelled as being by Hitler's will.
We're close - but there's still no direct link; a good lawyer would piddle all over that document in a court of law if it was submitted as "proof" of Hitler's knowledge without sme form of corroboration.
We're close - but there's still no direct link; a good lawyer would piddle all over that document in a court of law if it was submitted as "proof" of Hitler's knowledge without sme form of corroboration.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
In a court of law he will be finished very quick, because I have his signature on euthanasia order (and some of team members have continued their job in Auschwitz),and I have enough witnesses and testimonies (including H.Frank, Goebbels Diaries, Eichmann testimony...)We're close - but there's still no direct link; a good lawyer would piddle all over that document in a court of law if it was submitted as "proof" of Hitler's knowledge without sme form of corroboration.
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
Highly interesting document, thanks for posting it. Although not strictly related to this topic, you wonder what prompted the release of this circular? Requests for guidelines from Gauleiters and other party officials? The intended adressees - Reichsleiter, Gauleitern and 'Verbändeführer' (?) should tell us something about who knew what, too.
Do you know if this circular was stamped 'Geheim' or similar?
As it stands, this document could be used by people wishing to claim innocence or ignorance of the mass murders of the Jews.
Do you know if this circular was stamped 'Geheim' or similar?
As it stands, this document could be used by people wishing to claim innocence or ignorance of the mass murders of the Jews.
kiseli wrote:
You wonder what else can be found under this reference!...
File Reference: Treatment/Jews
NO—2710.
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
On December 29, 1942,Himmler reported to Hitler that from August to November 363211 Jews had been "executed" in the Ukraine,South Russia, and the Bialystok District, NO-1128 (T 175,Roll 124)
Somehow , this discussion remind me on Irving trial in 2000 and his book Hitler's War.
Somehow , this discussion remind me on Irving trial in 2000 and his book Hitler's War.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
All of you, have another look at the directive from Bormann dated 11 July 1943.
It orders that there be no discussion of a FUTURE comprehensive solution of the Jewish Problem.
In other words, when officials of the National Socialist Party (Gauleiter etc) refer to the Jewish Problem in public, eg when addressing public meetings etc, they are not to say that in the future, eg after the final victory of Germany, there will a comprehensive solution of that problem.
There is nothing in the directive that suggests that those officials knew about an ongoing extermination and were talking publicly about it.
Perhaps the reason for the issuing of the directive was that Hitler wanted to have a totally free hand in determining the future solution of the Jewish Problem, and did not want to be bound in any way by declarations made by Party officials. Remember that on a number of occasions Hitler had declared to senior officials that the solution of the Jewish Problem would have to wait until after the end of the war.
Again, there is nothing in the directive that implies that Hitler had ordered the physical destruction of the Jews. All the directive does is to tell officials not to talk about a future solution, since that was to be a decision reserved to Hitler alone.
It orders that there be no discussion of a FUTURE comprehensive solution of the Jewish Problem.
In other words, when officials of the National Socialist Party (Gauleiter etc) refer to the Jewish Problem in public, eg when addressing public meetings etc, they are not to say that in the future, eg after the final victory of Germany, there will a comprehensive solution of that problem.
There is nothing in the directive that suggests that those officials knew about an ongoing extermination and were talking publicly about it.
Perhaps the reason for the issuing of the directive was that Hitler wanted to have a totally free hand in determining the future solution of the Jewish Problem, and did not want to be bound in any way by declarations made by Party officials. Remember that on a number of occasions Hitler had declared to senior officials that the solution of the Jewish Problem would have to wait until after the end of the war.
Again, there is nothing in the directive that implies that Hitler had ordered the physical destruction of the Jews. All the directive does is to tell officials not to talk about a future solution, since that was to be a decision reserved to Hitler alone.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
I have mentioned this previously.On December 29, 1942,Himmler reported to Hitler that from August to November 363211 Jews had been "executed" in the Ukraine,South Russia, and the Bialystok District, NO-1128 (T 175,Roll 124)
Somehow , this discussion remind me on Irving trial in 2000 and his book Hitler's War.
The report was not a report on the extermination of Jews, but on the progress of the anti-partisan campaign. It gave the numbers of partisans destroyed, and also of the numbers of "partisan supporters" killed, both Jewish and non-Jewish.
The vast majority of the "partisan-helpers" reported killed were Jewish. That was consistent with the ideology that the Soviet Jews were the main support of the Communist system.
There is a clear connection between this report and the agreement reached between Hitler and Himmler in December 1941 that Soviet Jews were to be regarded as partisans as extirpated as such ("als Partisanen auszurotten").
So Hitler knew that a large number of Soviet Jews had been killed by December 1942. In his mind, that was part of the process of destroying Bolshevism and the groups who supported it and opposed German rule.
However, that consideration applied only to the bolshevised Soviet Jews. There is still no indication that Hitler specifically ordered the killed of the Jews of Poland, or of any other country.
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
That does not explain why Bormann, acting on Hitler's orders, found it necessary to issue this circular nearly four years into the war, and at a time when various extermination facilities had been in operation for several years.michael mills wrote:...
It orders that there be no discussion of a FUTURE comprehensive solution of the Jewish Problem.
It is not specified in the circular that Gauleiter (and other party officials) be the ones raising the issue (of the treatment of the Jews), rather, it bans them from discussing the specifics while still allowing explaining that Jews are apprehended for 'appropriate labour purposes' Nor is it specified that a Gesamtlösung was not already underway.In other words, when officials of the National Socialist Party (Gauleiter etc) refer to the Jewish Problem in public, eg when addressing public meetings etc, they are not to say that in the future, eg after the final victory of Germany, there will a comprehensive solution of that problem...
To me, that seems like a guideline on how to handle questions from outsiders, not a guideline on how to address public meetings.
Why do you think a circular which, in your reading, addresses a post-war scenario was issued at a time when it was very doubtful if Germany would win the war?
No, but that still begs the question why such a circular was broadcast in July 1943, when the extermination of the Jews had been going on for several years?There is nothing in the directive that suggests that those officials knew about an ongoing extermination and were talking publicly about it...
I guess that in your reading, this circular unquestionably originated with Hitler and wasn't issued on Bormann's own initiative?
Why then refer to the victims of execution as 'Jews' and not as 'partisans'?...The report was not a report on the extermination of Jews, but on the progress of the anti-partisan campaign. It gave the numbers of partisans destroyed, and also of the numbers of "partisan supporters" killed, both Jewish and non-Jewish...
A more common translation of 'aus(zu)rotten' is 'exterminate'...There is a clear connection between this report and the agreement reached between Hitler and Himmler in December 1941 that Soviet Jews were to be regarded as partisans as extirpated as such ("als Partisanen auszurotten").
Do you mean that the Himmler-Hitler agreement to which you refer allows you to use the terms 'partisan' and 'Jew' interchangeably?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
JohnG,Why then refer to the victims of execution as 'Jews' and not as 'partisans'?
I respectfully suggest that you look at this issue analytically, rather than combatively.
If you look carefully at Himmler's Report 51, you will see that it is called "Bandenbekaempfung" (combatting gangs). It is not a report on "Solution of the Jewish Question".
The report gives the number of members of "Banden" killed over a certain period of time in a defined area. It then gives the number of "Bandenhelfer" (supporters of gangs) killed in the same period in the same area. The category "Bandenhelfer" is divided into "non-Jews" and "Jews". The number of Jewish "Bandenhelfer" killed is far greater than the number of non-Jewish "Bandenhilfer" killed, indicating that all Jews in an area of anti-partisan warfare were regarded as partisan-supporters and killed, whereas only a small part of the non-Jewish population were regarded as partisan-supporters.
Here is a link to a facsimile of Himmler's report 51 (sorry, I do not know how to insert it in this post):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... report.jpg
As you will see, Category 2 is "Bandenhelfer und Bandenverdaechtige" (gang-helpers and suspected gang-members).
That category is sub-divided into "festgenommen" (captured), "exekutiert" (executed) and "Juden exekutiert" (Jews executed). In other words, the executed Jews were a sub-group of "Bandenhelfer und Bandenverdaechtige".
As stated, what it means is that all Jews caught in an area of anti-partisan warfare were killed, whereas of the general population only those proved or suspoected to be partisans or partisan supporters were executed.
No, that is not a logical conclusion from the written words.Do you mean that the Himmler-Hitler agreement to which you refer allows you to use the terms 'partisan' and 'Jew' interchangeably?
This is the logical conclusion from Himmler's words:
1. Partisans (most probably in the occupied Soviet territories) were to be wiped out.
2. Jews (most probably those in the occupied Soviet territories) were partisans.
3. Therefore, those Jews were to be wiped out.
The most probable reason for issuing the directive is that officials of the National Socialist Party had been making public statements about a comprehensive solution of the Jewish Problem after the end of the war. The directive forbids mentioning such a future comprehensive solution.No, but that still begs the question why such a circular was broadcast in July 1943, when the extermination of the Jews had been going on for several years?
The officials are not to make any statement that pre-commits the Party to any future action on the Jewish Problem.
I do not know.I guess that in your reading, this circular unquestionably originated with Hitler and wasn't issued on Bormann's own initiative?
Bormann may have been acting on his own initiative, based on Hitler's repeated pronouncements that a solution of the Jewish Problem was to be left until after a successful conclusion to the war. No Party official was to be permitted to make any statement pre-empting Hitler's eventual decision on that post-war solution.
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
Nobody has claimed that it is.michael mills wrote:I respectfully suggest that you look at this issue analytically, rather than combatively.Why then refer to the victims of execution as 'Jews' and not as 'partisans'?
If you look carefully at Himmler's Report 51, you will see that it is called "Bandenbekaempfung" (combatting gangs). It is not a report on "Solution of the Jewish Question".
Actually, it isn't. The only ethniticity specified in Report 51 is Jewish. I think it can validly be asked why Jews only figure in the report under the 'executed' header.The report gives the number of members of "Banden" killed over a certain period of time in a defined area. It then gives the number of "Bandenhelfer" (supporters of gangs) killed in the same period in the same area. The category "Bandenhelfer" is divided into "non-Jews" and "Jews".
You are free to read purpose and overarching intent into the report which you link to, the blunt fact is that this report tells of the execution of a six-digit figured number of Jews over a four-month period (assuming that 'von 1.9 bis 1.12 1942' near the top of the document is a typo) in parts of the occupied Soviet Union. By any standard, the reader of such a document would know about mass murder.The number of Jewish "Bandenhelfer" killed is far greater than the number of non-Jewish "Bandenhilfer" killed, indicating that all Jews in an area of anti-partisan warfare were regarded as partisan-supporters and killed, whereas only a small part of the non-Jewish population were regarded as partisan-supporters.
It could just as easily be inferred that the mass killings of Jews were undertaken by the same agencies that dealt with the execution and imprisonment of partisans and suspected partisans, at the same time and at the same places.
Try putting the image intoHere is a link to a facsimile of Himmler's report 51 (sorry, I do not know how to insert it in this post):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... report.jpg
We don't know how the figures for Jews executed compare to the number of Jews caught in the same area in the same period. The only thing the document allows us to conclude is that the number of Jews executed was very large.As stated, what it means is that all Jews caught in an area of anti-partisan warfare were killed, whereas of the general population only those proved or suspoected to be partisans or partisan supporters were executed.
I suppose, then, that you can contrive sources/examples of Gauleitern (or other party officials) mentioning a solution to the Jewish problem pre-July 7 1943? Are there any discernable changes in Nazi policies towards the Jews following Bormann's circular?(snip parts alluding to other documents)The most probable reason for issuing the directive is that officials of the National Socialist Party had been making public statements about a comprehensive solution of the Jewish Problem after the end of the war. The directive forbids mentioning such a future comprehensive solution.No, but that still begs the question why such a circular was broadcast in July 1943, when the extermination of the Jews had been going on for several years?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
JonG,
I suggest you have a look at my post of Wednesday 14 June 2006, on page 2 of this thread. It sums up the essence of my thoughts on the interpretation of Meldung 51 ueber Banditenbekaempfung.
You should note that the page containing the information about the number of Jews executed during four months in a particular part of occupied Soviet territory is only the first page of the report. There are following pages giving further information, such as the number of weapons captured during anti-partisan operations, and statistics of German casualties.
Therefore, Report 51 is a genuine report on the results of anti-partisan operations by German security forces during four months in 1942. It is unlikely to be a disguised report about the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem".
The reason why the number of Jews executed as bandit-supporters or suspected bandits is simply that the number of Jewish bandit-supporters and suspected bandits was very large, according to the German definition. Indeed, according to that German definition, all Jews in areas of anti-partisan operations were partisans or partisan-supporters.
(Whether the Jews really were partisans or partisan-supporters is neither here nor there; obviously the German authorities considered them as such).
The crucial issue is how Hitler himself interpreted Report 51 when he read it. Did he see it as a report on an ongoing extermination of all Jews which he had ordered, cleverly hidden in a report on anti-partisan operations? Or did he see it as a genuine report on the successful combatting of the partisan menace in occupied Soviet territory, with the large number of Jews executed simply confirming his belief that the Jewish population was the main support of the Communist regime and also the main support of anti-German partisan activity?
I suggest you have a look at my post of Wednesday 14 June 2006, on page 2 of this thread. It sums up the essence of my thoughts on the interpretation of Meldung 51 ueber Banditenbekaempfung.
You should note that the page containing the information about the number of Jews executed during four months in a particular part of occupied Soviet territory is only the first page of the report. There are following pages giving further information, such as the number of weapons captured during anti-partisan operations, and statistics of German casualties.
Therefore, Report 51 is a genuine report on the results of anti-partisan operations by German security forces during four months in 1942. It is unlikely to be a disguised report about the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem".
The reason why the number of Jews executed as bandit-supporters or suspected bandits is simply that the number of Jewish bandit-supporters and suspected bandits was very large, according to the German definition. Indeed, according to that German definition, all Jews in areas of anti-partisan operations were partisans or partisan-supporters.
(Whether the Jews really were partisans or partisan-supporters is neither here nor there; obviously the German authorities considered them as such).
The crucial issue is how Hitler himself interpreted Report 51 when he read it. Did he see it as a report on an ongoing extermination of all Jews which he had ordered, cleverly hidden in a report on anti-partisan operations? Or did he see it as a genuine report on the successful combatting of the partisan menace in occupied Soviet territory, with the large number of Jews executed simply confirming his belief that the Jewish population was the main support of the Communist regime and also the main support of anti-German partisan activity?
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
I haven't claimed that it is, so I don't understand why you insist upon equipping me with that view.michael mills wrote:...
Therefore, Report 51 is a genuine report on the results of anti-partisan operations by German security forces during four months in 1942. It is unlikely to be a disguised report about the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem".
Based on what we know, and what the people compiling the report knew, though, it obviously forms part of the whole. I'd venture to say that anyone unaware of overall Nazi policies towards the Jews would be a little surprised to learn that four months of anti-partisan operations resulted in the executions of more than 360,000 Jews.
But if partisan activity in an occupied area gives anti-partisan forces a carte blanche to exectute all Jews in that area, what then does that tell us about the general Nazi attitude towards the Jews in occupied areas?The reason why the number of Jews executed as bandit-supporters or suspected bandits is simply that the number of Jewish bandit-supporters and suspected bandits was very large, according to the German definition. Indeed, according to that German definition, all Jews in areas of anti-partisan operations were partisans or partisan-supporters.
...
The crucial issue is how Hitler himself interpreted Report 51 when he read it. Did he see it as a report on an ongoing extermination of all Jews which he had ordered, cleverly hidden in a report on anti-partisan operations? Or did he see it as a genuine report on the successful combatting of the partisan menace in occupied Soviet territory
The crucial issue, before we apply interpretations, is the information conveyed by Report 51 -- namely a dry summing up of people killed/jailed/executed, with Jews making up the vast majority of those executed. That information conveys knowledge of mass murder.
How can the number of Jews executed confirm Hitler's beliefs if he ordered those executions himself? Isn't it rather his orders that are confirmed in the report?with the large number of Jews executed simply confirming his belief that the Jewish population was the main support of the Communist regime and also the main support of anti-German partisan activity?
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
Hi Guys,
Would the absence of any primary source showing Hitler ordered the massacre of European Jews make any practical difference to estimates of him?
Hitler was the executive head of state, government, and party in a one party state, to whom all armed forces, and others besides, swore a personal oath of loyalty.
So, unless someone is proposing that Hitler was none of these things, but rather some sort of symbolic figurehead mushroom (kept in the dark and fed on sh1t) we don't actually need a primary source showing Hitler ordered the slaughter of European Jewry.
It happened and he was demonstrably very much at the ultimate head and helm of every institution engaged in the so-called "Holocaust".
It would be convenient to have such a primary source, but it is not, in historical evidential terms, at all necessary.
Would the absence of any primary source showing Hitler ordered the massacre of European Jews make any practical difference to estimates of him?
Hitler was the executive head of state, government, and party in a one party state, to whom all armed forces, and others besides, swore a personal oath of loyalty.
So, unless someone is proposing that Hitler was none of these things, but rather some sort of symbolic figurehead mushroom (kept in the dark and fed on sh1t) we don't actually need a primary source showing Hitler ordered the slaughter of European Jewry.
It happened and he was demonstrably very much at the ultimate head and helm of every institution engaged in the so-called "Holocaust".
It would be convenient to have such a primary source, but it is not, in historical evidential terms, at all necessary.
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
I agree, MajorT. And even if one accepted the mushroom theory, it would be a thankless task somehow to prove what he didn't know about the industrial-scale killings of Jews and other 'undesirables'.
Absence of proof certainly isn't proof of absence - it might be relevant to discuss whether the descriptions of Jews executed in a single document submitted to Hitler were labelled 'partisans' or similar, but it is rather missing the point to base general conclusions on that single document only.
Absence of proof certainly isn't proof of absence - it might be relevant to discuss whether the descriptions of Jews executed in a single document submitted to Hitler were labelled 'partisans' or similar, but it is rather missing the point to base general conclusions on that single document only.
Re: Primary Evidence about Hitler
from:III. HITLER'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DECISION TO EXTERMINATE ALL EUROPEAN JEWS
Himmler and Hitler met on the afternoon of December 18, 1941. In regard to the first topic discussed, Himmler recorded, "Jewish question I to be exterminated as partisans." There can be no doubt that what Himmler wrote down after the vertical line represented the results of the conversation. But what did the brief notation mean? Linguistically, the statement is an order. The term "partisans" may at first glance seem to suggest the situation in the Soviet Union, but the execution of Soviet Jews had been decided some time ago and was already under way. Further, at that point there was not yet a significant number of Jewish partisans in the occupied Soviet territories. These considerations suggest that Himmler's notation meant something else—that it referred to potential partisans and to the supposed "Jewish threat." It is significant that Himmler's note lists the topic of conversation not as "Jews in the east" or as "Soviet Jews" but rather as the all-encompassing "Jewish question." By itself, Himmler's notation is difficult to interpret unambiguously, but there is some justification for interpreting Hitler's statement in a global sense.
Himmler's notation may be read in connection with other documents that help shed some light on its meaning. One of these documents is a letter to Himmler written on June 23, 1942, by Viktor Brack, the person responsible for the Euthanasia Program. In the letter, he explained that he had again placed some of his staff at the disposal of Odilo Globocnik101 for his use at extermination camps connected with "Operation Reinhard"—the code name for the program to liquidate Jews from the General Government in the camps at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Majdanek: "Brigade Leader Globocnik took the opportunity to express his opinion that this action against the Jews should be carried out as quickly as possible, so that it not be left unfinished should any difficulties make it necessary to suspend the operation. At one time, you yourself, Reichsfiihrer, indicated to me [in person] that for reasons of secrecy we ought to complete the work as quickly as possible."
Evidence in this same letter suggests that Brack was referring to the decision to execute Jews from throughout Europe, for he remarks that out of "approximately ten million European Jews" it would be better to "preserve" than to liquidate "two or three million of them," in order to use them as a labor supply for the German war economy. The excerpt cited above occurs in the same context. Furthermore, in my opinion, the wording of the last sentence in that excerpt suggests that Brack can only be referring to a personal conversation with Himmler that had taken place some time ago ("at one time"). According to Himmler's appointment schedule for 1941 and 1942 (a rather substantial set of documents), the most recent meeting between Himmler and Brack before this letter occurred on December 14, 1941. Topics of discussion were listed as "[...] Course in East Ministry]" and "Euthanasia." In light of this chain-of evidence, it seems highly likely that Himmler discussed the plans to liquidate all European Jews with Brack at that meeting.
Further, Philipp Bouhler, the head of the Fiihrer Chancellery and Brack's superior, was present on December 13,1941, at a meeting with Hitler attended by Rosenberg and von Ribbentrop. He was also present at a December 14, 1941, meeting with Hitler that Himmler and Rosenberg attended.104 The frequency of these meetings is striking. According to his letter cited above, Brack, at Bouhler's behest, had provided personnel to Globocnik on at least two occasions for use at the extermination camps. After the war Brack would testify that this had first occurred following a meeting between Himmler and Bouhler. A document written by Bouhler in July 1942 confirms this last point, especially Bouhler's own responsibility: he asserts that "I have placed a large part of my organization at the disposal of Reichsfiihrer Himmler for use in a solution to the Jewish question that will extend to the ultimate possible consequences!'
As to exactly when the first large group of personnel from the Fiihrer chancellery arrived in Belzec, there are conflicting opinions as to whether it was in November or December of 1941. Based on all the available evidence, it seems to have been shortly before the Christmas of 1941.It is possible that the exchanges on December 13 and 14 described above led to a shift of personnel on very short notice. But it is also conceivable that, at these meetings, Bouhler, Rosenberg, and Himmler gave Hitler only information about the steps that had already been taken to exterminate the Jews using poison gas—that is, about the murders using gas vans in the Soviet territories and in Chelmno, and about the status of preparations at Belzec. The meetings may also have led to "experts" being sent to the planned extermination sites in order to inspect the liquidation techniques. At the very least, it is difficult to believe that these meetings had no connection at all with the unfolding of the "Final Solution."
What brought about this sudden flurry of meetings? The reason can be seen most clearly in a note made by Rosenberg on December 16, 1941. The entry deals with a meeting Rosenberg had had with Hitler two days earlier. At that meeting, Rosenberg gave Hitler the manuscript copy of a speech for the Fuhrer's approval. Hitler "remarked that the text had been prepared before the Japanese declaration of war, in circumstances that had now altered." Rosenberg's entry continues as follows: "With regard to the Jewish question, I said that my remarks about the New York Jews would perhaps have to be changed now, after the decision. My position was that the extermination of the Jews should not be mentioned. The Fuhrer agreed. He said they had brought the war down on us, they had started all the destruction, so it should come as no surprise if they became its first victims."
By "the decision" Rosenberg could not have meant the entry of the United States into the war, for there is no logical connection between that event and the cessation of public threats against the Jews. Hitler's reaction indicates this as well, for he reiterates the justification for his decision to exterminate the Jews. Rosenberg certainly would have been informed immediately about such a decision, so this discussion on December 14 about the need to alter a speech that Rosenberg had written before December 7 indicates that the decision to "exterminate the Jews in Europe" must have been made after December 7 and before December 14, 1941
"The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler's Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews"
Christian Gerlach
The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 4. (Dec., 1998), pp. 759-812.